Pages

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Radicalism and the American Revolution by Gordon Wood

I
very much enjoyed Gordon Wood’s Radicalism
and the American Revolution. This
book is not for every reader, however. I
would only recommend Wood’s work for those with a very serious interest in the
topics covered. These subjects include
the American Revolution, the history of government, as well as the social
changes that occurred in Western Civilization during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. If one does have an abiding interest in these
areas, then Radicalism
and the American Revolutionis a must read.

Wood’s
book does not present a straightforward narrative; instead it provides facts,
statistics and a lot of quotations from the period of roughly 1750 to 1830. This information is woven together to produce
suppositions. These hypotheses are often
convincing and are always fascinating. The
entire basis of the work runs counter to the somewhat popular argument that the
American Revolution was not a revolution at all, but only a war for
independence. Wood also refutes the
contention that even if the American Revolution was a political revolution, it
was not a social revolution. The author
presents his case that during this era, America experienced massive political,
social, philosophical, demographic and economic changes that were comparable to
other great upheavals.

Wood
illustrates how this period in American history brought about enormous
alteration in the social structure and hierarchy that was ingrained into
American society. Most relationships,
starting with a the personal connections that many people perceived that they
had to the king, to local government, as well as to their own families, were
radically transformed. Society changed
from a structure of vertical, patriarchal connections to a system of horizontal
relationships and coalitions.

Additionally,
Wood points out how the American Revolutionary period brought about great
changes in government, demographics, and economics. Everything, from the way parents raised their
children to the way commerce was conducted, from the way Americans received and
evaluated information to even table manners, to name just a few points,
metamorphosed during this period.

All of
these changes that took place during the early 1800s produced an amazingly
dynamic, individualistic and egalitarian society that bubbled with ideas and
commerce. This society was unique in the
world and had a major impact on how the present day world came to be.

Wood
does point out that this dynamism and the advantages that it bestowed was
mostly restricted to white men. He does
address and explore the implications that these changes had on women, African–American
slaves and Native Americans. The author
does not shy away from enormous contradictions between this flowering of
liberty that benefitted some groups and the horrors of slavery and other evils
that were present at this time. He
attempts to explain how these vast incongruities could exist. He further explores what effect the revolution
had on various movements such as abolition and women’s rights.

Somewhat controversially, Wood contends that,
like most revolutions, the changes in America ran well beyond what its original
instigators ever intended. I will
further explore this point in more detail below. Thus, Wood contends that while not as violent
or mob driven as the French Revolution and other similar events, this American
experience was just as radical.

As
with many good books, there are too many ideas in Radicalism
and the American Revolutionto
comprehensively delve into within a single blog post. As I am fond of doing, I will concentrate upon
what was for me one of many fascinating points found in the book. This topic revolves around the political
theory and history of Classical Republicanism as interpreted by the
revolutionary generation. I need to
mention that I believe the ideology ascribed by Wood as “Classical
Republicanism” that was espoused by many of America’s founders is not entirely
congruous with the other historical characterizations of this ideology that I
have run into. I am confining my
discussion to Wood’s definition and interpretation here.

Classical
Republicanism, at least during this era, was premised on the preposition that
anyone who had strong “interest” in society, particularly economic interests,
was unfit to govern and lead. The self-interested individual would only
advocate for and support policies that were advantageous to that person and his
peers.

Instead,
government should be comprised of men who were “uninterested”. Such men would impartially judge among the
competing interests that existed in society. This leadership class should also be composed
of the best educated and the most virtuous citizens. Who could possibly meet these requirements? Many of the founders believed that such
headship should be drawn from a special group of the wealthy and elite.

This
group was comprised of men of propriety wealth. In theory, these rich landowners controlled
vast estates that provided a steady source of wealth and income that required
little management. These property owners,
numerous in Virginia but present in various forms in all of the states, were
considered to be independent of mercantile, speculative and other capitalistic
pursuits. Such economic disinterest would
put this class of men above any personal ambitions for profit and allow them to
be fair arbiters of society. Instead of
representing particular groups, these leaders would represent everyone. These men were also usually well educated and
considered by some to be the most honorable members of society. This new elite would replace the old
aristocracy and monarchy that was swept aside by the revolution.

Lest
one err in concluding that this dream of Classical Republicanism came to be in
an America that for much of its history has been dominated by moneyed
interests, the Classical Republicans did not believe that capitalists or
businessmen should ever be allowed to govern society. Contrary to the wealthy
estate holders who, it was supposed, did not need to do anything to assure
their income, citizens who were involved in mercantilism or speculation were
some of the most interested people around and were thus not trustworthy enough
for government service.

Many
of the Classical Republicans held an enormous distrust for the lower classes
and the dangers of mob rule, and were particularly opposed to universal male
suffrage. However, a social and
political structure led by uninterested men whose actions were exemplary and
beyond reproof would help to encourage virtue in all layers of society, and
thus help to pacify members of the lower classes. The behavior of the elite would be the model for
all classes. Hard work, frugality,
education and civility would be highly valued by everyone in such a nation.

To
some extent, Classical Republicanism government may have operated more or less
as intended during the administration of George Washington. Washington was in many ways the epitome of the
disinterested elite and virtuous republican. He was not only a wealthy land owner, but on
many occasions he honestly strived to rise above the fray and act the
disinterested leader who looked beyond parochial interests for what he believed
to be the good of all society.

Wood
argues that the formulation of the United States Constitution in 1787 was in
part an attempt by the Federalists, who championed the idea of Classical
Republicanism to defend and solidify their chosen system. The Constitution included such bastions of
Classical Republicanism as a Senate elected by state legislatures, a powerful
executive chosen not by the people but by electors, as well as Supreme Court
Justices who served for life. Wood points out that the Constitution failed to
enshrine this system as intended. Many history and government scholars and
buffs, including at times myself, have extoled the genius that the founders
showed in crafting this document. If we
accept Wood’s contention, at least in this respect, the Constitution was a
failure in the eyes of its creators!

Of
course, this version of Classical Republicanism was an interesting theory of
government that was based upon false premises. For one thing the American landed elite never
were so secure as to be able to disregard all capitalistic and speculative
pursuits. To the contrary, after the
war, these wealthy patricians found that they were falling deeper and deeper in
debt, and thus began to engage in financial speculation in order to supplement
income.

Another
major impediment to the success of this system was the fact that other powerful
groups, such as the mercantile interests and tradesmen, soon demanded their own
representation in the republic. This was
coupled by the tendency of lower economic classes to develop a desire for material
goods and luxuries. This acquisitiveness
in the population ran counter to the idea of the frugal, hard working and virtuous
citizen championed by the supporters of Classical Republicanism

Like
most and perhaps all revolutions, the American Revolution far outdistanced and
eventually buried the intentions and goals of the original revolutionaries. Though not a point made by Wood, I find it
ironic that when describing discredited political or economic systems, such as
communism, modern day commentators and historians use terms like ‘the dustbin
of history” and often express bemusement that anyone ever espoused such
ideologies. It turns out that many of
America’s founding icons, including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and
John Adams, believed in and attempted to establish just as unworkable a system.

To
the dismay of many of the cherished founders, the idea of Classical
Republicanism gave way to what we call Liberal Democracy. This new, much more radical system, championed
by the anti–Federalists, acknowledged that society was full of competing
interests and there really was no group that was truly disinterested. Therefore
the best form of government contained legislatures composed of representatives
of various groups. Partisans would
coalesce around parties. The legislators
would be engaged in constant push and pull as well as compromise. The end result of this competitive process
would yield balanced governance.This is
the system what the modern democracies more or less still adhere to today.

Wood’s
argument that Classical Republicanism was a goal of many of America’s founders
that ultimately unraveled and gave way to more radical ideas is a convincing
one. I do however find a flaw in Wood’s
presentation. Often, Radicalism
and the American Revolutionpresents the conflict between the
Federalists who supported Classical Republicanism and the Anti–Federalists who
opposed it as too monolithic. The book
casts supporters and opponents as being without much nuance. My own understanding of the views and policies
of America’s founders includes all sorts of variations and contradictions on
this matter. For instance, Jefferson
epitomized and led the anti–Federalists, yet he championed the agrarian, landed
estate holders who were supposed to lead the Classical Republican society. Hamilton expressed enormous distrust of the
masses and mob rule, yet he advocated for the emerging mercantile class that
Classical Republicans would exclude from governance. Washington, the embodiment of a patrician
republican, was extremely pragmatic and never really believed that any group
was above partisanship and thus truly disinterested.

Though
in my opinion he pushes his point and portrays it a little too simplistically,
Wood is on to something when he describes this antiquated political theory and
how it quickly gave way to more revolutionary ideas. He presents a thoroughly researched, smart and
thought provoking study and analysis of this issue.

Wood’s
book is full of interesting ideas for those who are inclined to delve deeply
into these subjects. The examination of
the idea and history of Classical Republicanism in American is only one of many
avenues that he strides here. As someone
very interested in the history and ideology of this era, I enjoyed this book
immensely. This work is however, in the language of modern slang, wonky. I would only recommend Radicalism
and the American Revolutionto those who
are indeed very interested.